Making Meaning of Making: Using CHAT to

Making Meaning of Making: Using CHAT to Understand Digital Fabrication in the Classroom Alexandria K. Hansen, Jasmine K. McBeath, Danielle B. Harlow University of California, Santa Barbara Abstract This study uses Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to make meaning of a digital fabrication project situated in the complexity of a classroom. Using an ethnographic perspective, we observed 14 students (aged 13-14) in a middle school’s Creative Design and Engineering (CDE) class. Working with the classroom teacher, a professional stuntman tasked students with fabricating a prosthetic bone for use as a movie prop. Teacher interviews and student focus groups revealed different rules and conventions between traditional science class and CDE. Specifically, students often referred to “experiment” as a verb in CDE (but a noun in science), considered learning in CDE as inherently memorable (compared to having to memorize in science), and had different reactions to failure, with some considering it “messing up” and others “building on.” Additionally, affordances and constraints of the physical tool (a 3D printer) were identified from the perspective of participants. Affordances included a sense of novelty, ownership, and preparation for future goals, whereas constraints of the tool included length of printing time, small size of printed objects, occurrence of failed prints, and the 2D-nature of the design software. Finally, two illustrative vignettes are presented to depict tensions that emerged due to facilitating this digital fabrication project within the traditional confines of a classroom. Purpose “The biggest challenge and the biggest opportunity for the Maker Movement is to transform education.” -Dougherty (2013) The Maker Movement “represents a growing movement of hobbyists, tinkerers, engineers, hackers, and artists committed to creatively designing and building material objects for both playful and useful ends” (Martin, 2015, p.30). Making is also associated with Maker Faires, maker spaces, and fabrication (or fab) labs, in which participants actively create physical objects to share with the world around them (Resnick & Rosenblum, 2013). Historically, the act of making traces back to crafts such as woodworking, sewing, and electronics (Martin, 2015), but the rise of personal fabrication tools such as 3D printers, 3D scanners, and laser cutters, has revolutionized the act of making for the twenty first century. In alignment with Papert’s learning theory of constructionism, the Maker Movement embodies the notion that individuals learn best when they are constructing an entity for public consumption (Papert & Harel, 1991, p.1). Ultimately, making is the act of creating physical artifacts—using knowledge and

Hansen, McBeath & Harlow Making meaning of making

2

skills from the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and art (STEAM) —for the purpose of sharing playful and useful creations with the world. With the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) that specifically include engineering design, and the emergence of affordable technologies that enable novices to create increasingly complex designs, this is an excellent time to consider how the Maker Movement can transform K-12 education. Rather than simply being consumers of the outside world, children have the power to become producers—producers of their own learning experiences, knowledge, and, ultimately, futures (Blikstein, 2013). The idea of children acting as producers of their own knowledge through playful creation overlaps with Dewey (1902), Friere (1974), and Montessori’s (1964) approaches to learning. Progressive museums, nonprofits, and design labs for children have considered the importance of giving children complex tools (Turliuk & Forest, 2014), and using materials that promote inquiry and exploration (Bennett & Monahan, 2013; Petrich et al., 2013; Simon & Brown, 2013). Researchers have also documented learning through collaboration and scaffolding of sewing projects at the Children’s Museum of Pittsburg (Sheridan et al., 2014) and tinkering at the San Francisco Exploratorium (Petrich, et al., 2013). Research on making is still in the early stages, and only now is expanding from museums, afterschool clubs, and summer camps into more formal school settings (Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014). There is evidence to support that integrating technology in student-centered learning environments such as makerspaces, allows more students to find value in school (Martin & Dixon, 2013). When students are creating with technology they “become more engaged, spend more time investigating and/or constructing and take ownership for and build confidence in their abilities to learn and understand” (Petrich, Wilkinson & Bevan, 2013, p. 56). Additionally, Blikstein (2014) argued that makerspaces are essential to the school learning environment because they 1) enhance existing practices and expertise representative in manual labor (and potentially validate students' personal experiences being raised in a low income community where blue collar work is more common), 2) accelerate the processes of ideation and invention, and 3) allow for long term projects and deep collaboration. Martinez and Stager (2013) explained that projects involve “work that is substantial, sharable, and personally meaningful” (p. 57). By engaging students in meaningful projects with appropriate tools for expression, technology has a democratizing effect that places the means of expression in the hands of children. Despite the Maker Movement offering a promising approach to STEM education, there are inherent tensions between key tenants of the Maker Movement and how schools are structured and operated. Scholars have cautioned educators against blind adoption of maker activities in the classroom, fearing that “attempts to institutionalize making- through schools, after-school programs, etc.- will quash the emergence, creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit that are hallmarks of the ‘maker

3

Hansen, McBeath & Harlow Making meaning of making revolution’” (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014, p. 500). Martin (2015) also warned educators from becoming too fixated on the tools themselves. As Martinez (2014) stated, “Going shopping will not change education. It never has.” Simply buying a 3D printer for a classroom will not transform education if the learning around the tool is superficial. Blikstein (2013) referred to this issue as “the keychain syndrome” and cautioned educators against “the temptations of trivialization” (p. 8). More research is needed to explore how we can best engage students in meaningful projects with appropriate tools for expression, considering the benefits and limitations of the school system. To ensure the Maker Movement is executed with fidelity in the traditional school system, exemplar case studies of teachers engaging students in meaningful making are needed. In this paper, we provide an exploratory case study of a middle school teacher using digital fabrication in a required class. We use Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Roth, 2007) to analyze and frame our findings. Theoretical Framework In this study, we use CHAT as an analytical tool to explore the complex act of making within a school’s social and cultural setting. CHAT, regarded as “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy” (Roth, 2007, p. 186) and “the best kept secret of academia” (Engeström, 1993, p. 64), holds great analytical promise for educational settings. More than eighty years ago, Vygotsky championed the notion of studying the cultural context and setting around an individual, in opposition to behaviorist approaches (Vygotsky,

1986). Leont’ev (1978) and Engeström (1987) continued this line of research, with Engeström developing the activity system framework and popularizing the infamous triangle associated with CHAT (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) represented graphically. In our work, we considered students and teachers as socio-cultural actors in the activity system of a Creative Design and Engineering (CDE) classroom. We explored how the students’ articulated conventions in a CDE class (compared to a science class taught by the same teacher). We recorded their

4


perceptions of learning and coursework in these different contexts, potentially revealing their ideas related to the larger disciplines of engineering and science. Additionally, we investigated how the physical tool (the 3D printer) impacted students’ participation and completion of a digital fabrication project within the classroom. And, finally, we identified several tensions between interacting nodes of the activity triangle shown in Figure 1. In alignment with CHAT, tensions are sources of both change and progress within an activity system. Figure 2 depicts our conceptualization of the activity system under investigation in this study.

Figure 2. The CDE classroom activity system, represented graphically. Methods Research Design This research is a qualitative, descriptive, case study. As defined by Merriam (1988), “a qualitative case study is an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single instance, phenomenon, or social unit” (p. 21). She added that descriptive case studies “include as many variables as possible and portray their interaction, often over a period of time” (p. 30). Merriam (1998) emphasized that a case should be a bounded system, something one can “fence in.” Additionally, Yin (1994) observed that a case study design is particularly well suited for studying a phenomenon that is impossible to separate from the context itself. In this research, the bounded case under investigation (also referred to as the activity system, in line with CHAT) is a Creative Design and Engineering (CDE) classroom where students worked in small groups to complete a digital fabrication project over the course of six months.


5

To help focus classroom observations, we employed an ethnographic perspective (Green, Skukauskaite, & Baker, 2012). Ethnography “is the art and science of describing a group or culture” (Walford, 2008, p. 2). We investigated the CDE course at a local middle school that was taught by the school’s science teacher, considering what students “took up” and how they “contributed to what was socially constructed” within the context of the described activity system (Baker, Green, & Skukauskaite, 2008, p. 38). Research Questions 1. Rules: What counts as science versus engineering for subjects of a CDE class? How do students describe CDE in contrast to science? o

How do the students’ descriptions convey the implicit and explicit rules of CDE?

2. Tools: What affordances and constraints does the 3D printer provide? How does this impact the students’ completion of a digital fabrication project in CDE? 3. Tensions: What tensions emerge between interacting nodes of the activity triangle within the context of the CDE classroom under investigation? Research Context School. This research took place at a private K-8 school located in Central California with approximately 210 students enrolled. The school prides itself on being student-centered and enjoying lower teacher-student ratios than more traditional, public schools. The school hosts a variety of admission events throughout the school year to attract new students. Students apply for acceptance online, with a rolling admission period. There are select grants and funding options available for families to subsidize the tuition costs. Students can receive anywhere from $1000 to almost full tuition coverage, based on the family’s need. Because the school is private, student demographic data is not publicly available. Participants. Participants included 14 (of 15 enrolled) 8th grade students, aged 13-14 at the time of the study. There were 7 female students and 7 male students; one male student enrolled in the class declined to participate. The majority of enrolled students were Caucasian. Students worked in groups of 2-4 to complete the digital fabrication project. In addition to the classroom teacher (Ms. T), an instructional aide (Ms. W) with experience working with technology was also present in the classroom to assist students. The adults were also considered participants in this study. All student and teacher names used in this report are pseudonyms. Creative Design and Engineering Course and Curriculum. In the year prior to this study (2013-2014), the middle school science teacher (Ms. T) offered a Creative Design and Engineering elective course because the school was interested in integrating science, technology, engineering, art, and


6

mathematics (STEAM). However, when the course was offered as an elective, a greater number of boys enrolled than girls. Because the school and teacher felt that this was an essential learning experience for all students, the course was made mandatory the following academic year. In the required course, the teacher sought to provide experiences for students to design both digitally and physically in authentic contexts and for authentic audiences. Students programmed interactive stories and games using Scratch (http://scratch.mit.edu), built robots, experimented with Makey Makey (http://makeymakey.com), and gained experience using a 3D printer—specifically a MakerBot Replicator M2 (see Figure 3). The teacher also noted that she sought to teach skills and dispositions of the “maker mindset” to the students throughout the course (Dougherty, 2013). These skills included empathy, design thinking, learning from failure, focusing on process rather than product, learning to and from critique, acquiring knowledge through doing, and the importance of a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006).

Figure 3. MakerBot Replicator 2—the 3D printer used by students in CDE—with a prototype bone. This case study specifically examined a learning unit that used the 3D printer as the primary physical tool for construction. In an effort to design an authentic design challenge using the 3D printer that also had an audience outside of the school, the teacher collaborated with a professional stuntman. The stuntman was also an enrolled student’s father (herein referred to as Mr. P), who was missing part of his leg, an important physical characteristic for the project task. In the project, students were tasked with fabricating a prosthetic bone for use as a prop in a movie scene by the stuntman. The bone was required to look realistic, break with realistic fracturing when applied with a force, and fit within predetermined size constraints (see Figure 4). The stuntman intended to use the bone, along with artificial skin and blood, in a movie scene. Due to a nondisclosure agreement, he was unable to tell students which movie this prop would be used in.


7

Figure 4. Prosthetic bone project constraints, as recorded on the whiteboard for students. Figure 4 shows the “design criteria” for the prosthetic bone. The final bone design was required to fit into a “holder/connector,” measure 200 millimeters in length, measure 30 millimeters in diameter, and splinter in a realistic manner. The image on the right in Figure 4 is a drawing that the teacher created to assist students during class time. Ms T. designed this project with the goal of providing opportunities for her students to gain experience using the engineering design process, referred to as design thinking in this context. Specifically, she hoped students would prototype multiple designs, and practice changing 2D drawings into 3D objects. Prior to this project, students had several opportunities use the 3D printer. First, students were allowed to design and print one object of their choosing, with the teacher’s approval of size. Ms. T reasoned that this small project would both provide practice with the machine and software, while also fulfilling students’ desires to print something unique and personalized. These printed objects greatly varied from holiday decorations to key chains, animal figurines, and jewelry boxes. One student in particular shared a story about how she was fond of drawing pictures of birds for her parents when she was younger, so instead of drawing another bird, she printed a bird as a gift. Students also participated in the White House ornament design challenge using the 3D printer; extra ornaments were donated to a local transition house for needy families. All 3D designs were completed using TinkerCAD (https://www.tinkercad.com)—free, publically accessible design software that functions within an Internet browser and on iPads (see Figure 5). Generally, students worked on the school’s laptops while using TinkerCAD, although they were permitted to use their own devices if they preferred.


8

Figure 5. TinkerCAD design software, showing early prototype bone designs by one group. Data Collection Multiple types of qualitative data were collected: observations, teacher interviews, and focus group interviews with students. Each of these sources of data is discussed in more detail below. Observations. In the 2014-2015 school year, we collected ethnographic field notes on 20 hours of class meetings, documenting students’ design process weekly over the course of this six-month long digital fabrication project. During observations, observers were primarily stationed at a side table when the teacher was reviewing information in front of the class. When students transitioned to working in groups, observers walked around the classroom. We were primarily focused on the students’ design process within their groups. How were students working together, sharing work, negotiating ideas and designs? How were the overall designs progressing in alignment with the project constraints? How did the 3D printer impact students’ work? Interviews and focus groups. At the completion of the project, an individual teacher interview was conducted, and 4 student focus groups with 13 students in total (one student with consent was absent on the day of focus groups). Interviews took place on the school’s campus, in a quiet room free from distractions. Student focus groups ranged in length from 30 minutes to 70 minutes, and were organized by the groups that students worked with to complete the project. The student focus groups included questions regarding the 3D design experience and working with groups. Additionally, during the focus groups, students worked in small groups to create a Venn diagram, comparing their traditional science class and their current CDE class. The Venn diagrams served as the starting point for discussion during the focus groups. Students went on to explain their diagrams, elaborating and expanding their ideas as a group. Two student focus groups were video and audio recorded. The other two student focus groups were audio recorded but not filmed because students in these groups only had parental consent for audio recording.

9

Hansen, McBeath & Harlow Making meaning of making The teacher interview lasted approximately 60 minutes, and included questions about her motivation, planning, and instruction related to the CDE class. The teacher interview was video and audio recorded.

For the interview and focus groups, semi-structured protocols were used (Brenner, 2006). A semistructured interviewing protocol begins with precise questions and probes, but allows the individual researcher flexibility in conducting the interview. This type of protocol was selected to provide more freedom in following up on unanticipated questions or topics that might arise during the interviews. Both student focus groups and the teacher interview began with a grand tour question such as, “Walk me through an average, typical day in CDE,” “How does class usually start, progress, and end?” or “What type of work do you usually do?” These grand tour questions elicited the lived experiences of students and the teacher in real-world context, from their perspective, and provided detailed data worth following up on within the remainder of the interview. All questions were designed to be “open-ended, neutral, singular, and clear” (Patton, 2002, p. 353). Additionally, Spradley (2002) provided guidance in creating descriptive questions. While descriptive questions “are the easiest to ask and they are used in all interviews,” they proved valuable in understanding experiences and perceptions of participants (Spradley, 2002, p. 60). These open-ended, descriptive questions allowed participants to speak more broadly and discuss topics that they believed were important. Additional probes were also created for each question, in case respondents needed help expanding. Data Analysis First, student focus groups and the teacher interview were transcribed. After the focus groups and interview were transcribed, descriptive, emergent coding—in alignment with CHAT—was used to pull common themes in a first round of coding (Saldaña, 2010) based on each research question. According to Saldaña (2013), “description is the foundation for qualitative research,” and descriptive coding is “appropriate for virtually all qualitative studies” (p. 88, 262). Descriptive coding summarizes the data into a word or short phrase, most often a noun. Table 1 shows each research question, the corresponding structural code that was applied, and a brief description. Table 1. Research Questions and Description of Qualitative Code Research Question

Structural Code

Description of Code

What counts as science versus engineering for subjects of a CDE class? How do students describe CDE in contrast to science?

Rules – CDE Rules – Science

Refers to explicit mention of conventions in CDE class and/or science class.

What affordances and constraints does the 3D printer provide? How does this impact the

Tools – Physical Affordance Constraint

Refers explicitly to the 3D printer. If positive, it is an affordance. If negative, it is a

10

Hansen, McBeath & Harlow Making meaning of making students’ completion of a digital fabrication project in CDE?

constraint.

What tensions emerge between interacting nodes of the activity triangle within the context of the CDE classroom under investigation?

Tension

Refers to source of trouble or frustration, as voiced by participants.

The preliminary coding scheme shown in Table 1 was created and refined through group discussion with colleagues. Two researchers (both authors of this paper) then used the revised coding scheme to code all of the focus group and teacher interview data using Dedoose software (http://www.dedoose.com). The two researchers then reviewed each individual code to increase inter-rater reliability. In the event that the researchers disagreed about an applied code, discussion was used to reach consensus. After this round of coding, codes were grouped into their corresponding categories and further discussed to tease out emerging themes. After emergent themes (e.g., novelty as an affordance of the 3D printer, or size limitations as a constraint of the 3D printer) were identified for each research question, additional analysis was completed using the ethnographic classroom field notes; specifically, each classroom observation was reviewed to confirm or disconfirm and supplement what was stated in the teacher interview and student focus groups. Illustrative excerpts were pulled to support the emergent themes for each research question. A summary of all written responses from the Venn diagram, student focus group activity is shown in Table 2. The table lists counts of how many times a particular descriptor was recorded on a Venn diagram. Because students worked in groups to complete the Venn diagram, only four Venn diagrams were collected; thus, the maximum amount of times a descriptor can be counted is four. Table 2. Summary table of student responses when asked to contrast Science class and CDE class. Descriptors that appeared more often are listed at the top of the column Science

Science and Engineering

Engineering

More paper (3)

Always learning (2)

Building (4)

Structured (3)

Helpful (2)

Less instructive (2)

Chemicals (3)

Directed (1)

Relatable to the real world (2)

Take notes (2)

Involves math (1)

Hands-on (2)

Smaller experiments (2)

Involves experiments (1)

More trial and error (2)

Right and wrong answer (2)

Trial and error (1)

Ms. W [Instructional aide] (2)

Answer nearby (1)

Ms. T [Classroom Teacher] (1)

Answer far away (1)

11

Hansen, McBeath & Harlow Making meaning of making Quiet, Working alone (1)

Loud, Group work (1)

More educational (1)

Not a right or wrong answer (1)

Harder

Fun (1) More modern (1) Bigger experiments (1) Measurements and units (1) Coding and programming (1) Results Our analysis revealed a deep understanding of the students’ lived experiences in the CDE

classroom. Finding 1 highlights the differences in student perceptions between traditional science class and CDE class. Finding 2 presents the affordances and constraints of the 3D printer as a tool for construction, as identified by student and teacher participants. Finding 3 provides two illustrative vignettes that depict tensions that emerged in the CDE classroom between interacting nodes of the activity triangle shown in Figure 2. All quotations are taken from focus groups and interviews. Finding 1: Rules of Science versus Engineering All students during the focus groups agreed that CDE class was inherently different than their current science class, as well as previous science classes they had taken. Looking at the responses shown in Table 2, all four groups of students mentioned that CDE class included building. Other common CDE descriptors mentioned in at least two of the student focus groups included CDE class as less instructive, relatable to the real world, hands-on, and involving more trial and error. In contrast, when describing science, three of the four groups agreed that science included more paper, note taking, and structure. Beyond what was recorded on the Venn diagrams, the analysis of student discussion about the diagrams revealed other patterns. In particular, we found that students: 1) Referred to “experiment” as a noun in science and a verb in CDE, 2) Considered the learning in CDE memorable (as opposed to having to memorize in science), and 3) Had different reactions to failure. All of these findings are discussed in more detail below. Experiment vs. Experimenting. Students tended to use the word “experiment” as a noun in science, but as a verb in CDE. When describing science, students referred to experiments as being “laid out for you with small steps to get from one thing to the next.” They also referred to experiments as something that has already been discovered, “things that been proven,” and “stuff that our parents probably learned.” For these students, it seemed like experiments in science class were artificial repetitions of experiments that have already been conducted, with the answer already documented.


12

Additionally, students positioned the teacher as the primary knowledge holder in the science classroom; she already knew the results for experiments conducted. The following transcript from a student focus group captures this observation (emphasis added). Arianna: Science is more things that are already there, things that have been proven. And, [CDE] was more like trying to make new things, and experimenting with this. It was all just experimental, I feel like. Science is more like, you have to have the control variable, like the amount of weight you got on, the independent variable. Elaine: We used some of that. A little bit of that, maybe. But, not as much as you usually would in science class. Arianna: Usually, with the experiments in science, Ms. T knows what’s going to happen. And, she’s like, you didn’t get that right. And, we’re just like, okay. In the above transcript, Arianna describes the process of fabricating a prosthetic bone in the CDE class. In contrast to work in science, Arianna described that the bone project in CDE involved “trying to make new things, and experimenting. It was all just very experimental,” whereas science experiments tended to be more structured, involving predetermined predictor and outcome variables and known results. In contrast to work in science, students used the term “experimenting” when describing work in the CDE class. In particular, one student, Bailey, shared how “there’s not really a right answer” in CDE, and the process of building was “never over,” because she could continuously revisit the same project to “keep enhancing and changing.” Rather than reaching a singular solution through methodical means, in CDE class, students were encouraged to tinker and experiment in order to find multiple entry points and reach varied solutions. Additionally, because students believed there was no singularly correct answer, the teacher was no longer viewed as the primary knowledge holder. Another student, Hannah, explained how the teacher “puts up the hints but then steps back, and we have to figure out how to get from one place to the next.” In CDE, the answer was described as “very far away, and you have to go find it in the distance,” as opposed to relying on the teacher to convey or evaluate results for correctness. As Bailey, described, CDE allowed her to “see how things work and how [she] can change things that aren’t just on paper with a right or wrong answer. There’s a gray area.” When comparing science and engineering, the students use distance and movement to discuss process over product. They compare how in science there are “small steps to get from one thing to the next”, a clear pathway with a destination. Because the end is in sight and the teacher knows the final destination, the teacher is positioned as the guide rather than an expert explorer. If lost in science, the teacher will provide the answer to help students reach the predetermined destination. Comparatively, their description of engineering is more like a winding path, where students “figure out how to get from one place to the next.” The teacher provides insight and hints, but the answer is still “very far away.” Even


13

when a destination is reached, it is not the true end. Bailey stated that the project has finished, but they could still refine their design and rethink the same project or apply it to new contexts. In this way, “it’s never over.” The following transcript from a student focus group further illustrates this finding. Sadie: For science, you move on every time. It’s like something new. Bailey: It’s not like long term. Sadie: With engineering, it’s the same basically. It’s the same project that you just keep enhancing, and changing. Hannah: Yeah, cause the first time you do it…well, ours, the bone, was kind of a fail. The second time we made it better. And, this time we made it even better. Just keep making it better. Bailey: Within that same project, there’s like variations. So, it never becomes boring. If we had like a science, writing project that we had to do for a month, that would probably get old after a while. But, this is something that’s just not the same every time you come in. Hannah: When you finish, you’re not really finished. You’re still building on. Bailey: Close enough to the end, and then you keep going. Hannah: And then you realize, oh, when one prints out, and sometimes it’s all wacky. Bailey: Even now that it’s been like 2 months since we’ve heard from [the stuntman], it’s not even over. We could still go in and change it again, and make it better, and figure out new ways. It’s never over. Bailey, Sadie, and Hannah present the view of science as small and self-contained, while engineering is branching and expansive. Bailey described science as short-term and Sadie added, “You move on every time. It’s like something new.” This view of science as short-term and methodical versus engineering as long-term and multifaceted also fits into the conception of experiment versus experimenting. As described about science class, students worked on one experiment at a time, then moved onto the next. An experiment is a “thing” to prove or “stuff” to learn. Working on the same science project over time “would probably get old after awhile” because when students master the concept or solve for the variables, they complete their experiment. In contrast, in engineering students are experimenting, so “it’s the same project that you just keep enhancing, and changing.” In engineering, students never finish because “experiment” is viewed an action rather than an activity. Memorizing vs. Memorable. Students described science as consisting of paper, worksheets, notes, and memorizing. Returning to the student responses shown in Table 2, three focus groups reported that science involved more paper and was more structured; two focus groups referred to taking more notes in science and mentioned that answers in science are either correct or incorrect. According to one student, Sadie, science was viewed as “more educational, than for a purpose,” and as “just work and grades, like


14

school work.” In contrast, Sophie described CDE as “relatable to the real world. Not something that is small and in a beaker.” Students mentioned they were actually able to remember what happened when working on longer projects in CDE, as captured in the following transcript: Sadie: I definitely like the [CDE] class because we do like projects with it. And, I think, that in a way, it’s more learning. Bailey: Yeah. Sadie: Because we do so many different projects that you remember how to do them in the future. Like, what worked, what didn’t work. And, how to do it again. Hannah: Yeah. And, you remember them because like they’re memorable and fun. Sadie: You can only retain so much knowledge from a lecture. And, like, you don’t even remember the notes you take the next day. And so, from this, you can actually remember what happened. Bailey: In school, we take a lot of notes. And, we generally do like handouts and they give us papers. And, it’s on like paper or typing. But, when you have this kind of class you get to really…build. That’s what it is. Building, right? Derek: Yeah. Bailey: So, you get to really see how things work and how you can change things that aren’t just on paper with a right or wrong answer. It’s kind of a gray area, which I like. In CDE, students were building things and using them, with multiple opportunities to share their creations with the outside community. For example, students fabricated nametags for the incoming class of students, designed ornaments for a White House competition, which were later donated to a local transition house for needy families, and showcased their work at a Creative Design Fair for the school and their families. Having outside, authentic audiences made Bailey realize, “It’s bigger than this. Engineering is everywhere.” The format of CDE was often juxtaposed with traditional schoolwork, and was even described as “a new form of learning” by Bailey. Interestingly enough, another student, Tyler, shared that CDE class involved, “less worrying about grades, and learning stuff. It's more thinking about engineering and building things, working with your hands. I think it's more fun. The learning in CDE was deeply embedded in the design task. In fact, students sometimes struggled to articulate the science and mathematics concepts they used throughout their design processes. In contrast, for science, students described remembering disconnected vocabulary words out of context. For example, when asked what science concepts they used to inform the design of the bone, one group of boys shared the following: Alejandro: Oh, scientific thing. The volume. Perimeter. Area. Cody: And diameter.


15

Evan: The radius. Alejandro: The nucleus? Interviewer: Oh, nucleus too? While this group of boys did use the concepts of diameter and radius when designing the bone, it is very unlikely that they used the idea of a nucleus, further emphasized by the questioning tone in Alejandro’s voice when he stated, “The nucleus, too?” Alejandro listed words in his scientific vocabulary, prompted by the interviewer asking for science concepts. He said, “Oh scientific thing” as an organizational heading, before listing math and science terms. These prompted Cody and Evan to add other relevant terms, but there is no evidence in their interview of how these terms were applied to their project. The group was able to apply the concepts properly during the project, but not articulate them afterward, supporting the idea that the learning was deeply embedded in their task. Additionally, classroom observations revealed that Alejandro did, in fact, understand the concept of measurements, as indicated by the following classroom observation. Classroom Observation: January 29, 2015 Alejandro’s group is re-printing their bone because the original design was too small. This group uses the caliber to re-measure the dimensions, particularly the diameter and radius of their small print. The above observation describes a failed attempt by Alejandro’s group – their printed connector was too small. It also demonstrates that this group of boys was able to correctly measure the radius and diameter on their small print in order to adjust the measurements for future prints. While there is no evidence to demonstrate if the boys connected the vocabulary words “diameter” and “radius” to their actions in this moment, they were able to successfully measure these dimensions during class, demonstrating some extent of understanding. Messing Up vs. Building On. Another prevalent convention that emerged during the focus groups was around the idea of failure. The Maker Movement extols failure as a productive force, guiding future designs, however it is important to note that reactions and interpretations of failure in CDE varied considerably among students. In line with CHAT, individual subjects in a system will respond differently to the rules and conventions in a given setting. The majority of the students described that failure within CDE is not a bad thing, but results in meaningful learning that can be used to further refine a design. Three of the focus groups indicated that they viewed failure in CDE as positive and productive- “it’s not a bad thing, you learn from it.” Students described the feeling of never being really finished in CDE- “you’re still building on.” Following is an illustrative transcript depicting students’ description of CDE class and the idea of failure (emphasis added).


16

Bailey: [Ms. T] puts up the hints but then steps back. And, we have to figure out how to get from one place to the next. Hannah: Sometimes it’s helpful, but sometimes we really want to know. Like, we were doing the robots together and we were trying to program it to hit the wall. Bailey: And one wheel was going the opposite way [laughter]. Hannah: So, [Ms. T]’s backing up. Giving us a couple hints, but then backing up. Bailey: But I think that it’s helpful because then you learn that failure is not a bad thing. You learn from it. Bailey and Hannah described how failure provided guidance and a learning opportunity. When the robot did not hit the wall as expected, it challenged their assumptions and motivated them to solve the issue. The idea that failure was “not a bad thing” only applied in engineering class. As Arianna shared, “If you don’t know how to calculate velocity in science, you get reprimanded for that but if you build something really wrong, in engineering it’s like okay. Just start over.” However, in contrast to the above transcript, one focus group conducted with three boys revealed that these specific students viewed failure as “messing up,” expressing confusion and frustration. This group of boys described how their confusion over the project task led to a lack of focus in the classroom, which required the teacher to intervene. Following is an excerpt from the focus group depicting this finding. Cody: We messed up a lot. Interviewer: You messed up a lot. What did you mess up? Cody: The bone. Interviewer: Okay. When you guys were confused…how did you get back to the project? Alejandro: Ask Ms. T. Interviewer: Did Ms. T. have to direct you back? Alejandro: Yes. Interviewer: And, is that because you weren’t interested in [the project], or you were just confused? Alejandro: I think we just got frustrated. Cody: Yeah, and we got confused. We tried like a million times, and we just didn’t know what to do. In the transcript above, these students describe failure in the conventional sense. Rather than viewing failure as a motivational or instructional force, these students expressed confusion and frustration. The teacher provided guidance when they were unsure how to proceed, but this was also viewed as a response to their “messing up” rather than helpful guidance, reinforcing the sense of failure.


17

As the Maker Movement embodies the notion that failure is a crucial component of design, it is important to consider how this mentality translates to a classroom setting where tasks and projects are usually assigned to students, and a context in which students might not feel comfortable celebrating what they consider to be “messing up.” Finding 2: Affordances and Constraints of the Physical Tool The primary physical tool used for the digital fabrication project was the 3D printer. In the following subsections, both the affordances and constraints of the 3D printer are shared from the perspective of student and teacher participants in the CDE class. Affordances. The primary affordances of the 3D printer that students identified were: 1) A sense of uniqueness and novelty around the tool, 2) The personalization and ownership of realistic products, and 3) Future preparation for schools, jobs, and situations that might require the use of a 3D printer. Each of these affordances is discussed below with examples provided. Novelty. There was a sense of novelty surrounding the use of the 3D printer within the school context and larger community. For example, one student shared, “I don’t think our parents had 3D printers.” For her, and many other students, the tool itself was perceived as new. This sense of novelty also seemed connected to the idea that the students in CDE class were in a unique position—“I don’t think a lot of other schools are doing the same stuff.” This sense of novelty and uniqueness added excitement around the usage of the tool; as one student shared, “3D printers are amazing! And, then, we actually get to use it in middle school! How crazy is that?” These students viewed themselves as distinct and in a privileged situation because of the novelty the tool provided. Personalization and ownership. Another affordance of the tool was the quality of the products it produces. From the students’ perspectives, 3D printed objects seemed realistic, close to an object that one could purchase in a store. Perhaps more important to these students, they were able to design, personalize, and print objects for themselves. The following exchange between two students captures the sense of ownership that the 3D printer provided. Mariah: [Designing] is hard, then once your thing is printed, it’s fun. It’s like, oh my gosh, I made something. Travis: Yeah, I made it myself. I didn’t buy it. For these students, not buying the object from a store proved meaningful and motivating. It created a sense of ownership because the products were closer to professional quality. Despite the design process proving difficult at times, students enjoyed the finished products created by the 3D printer. As Bailey shared, “It pays off in the end, right? You get something that you made.” The other students in her focus group eagerly agreed with her.


18

In addition to expressing pride over the creation of realistic objects with the 3D printer, students appreciated the sense of personalization that the 3D printer provided, as illustrated in the following excerpt. Bailey: Since it was Christmas time…I made like a little wreath with my name. And, stuff around it. But, just like the idea of having your name on something. Sophie: Yeah! Bailey: It’s like we get to 3D print things, and now it’s ours [laughter]. It’s not for you, but me. Just the idea of personalizing something that you made. It’s so forward with technology. It’s crazy. The above excerpt illustrates that there is something beyond the accomplishment of spending time designing and seeing the final product. There is ownership in the design process, but also ownership in the more traditional sense, as the students printed their names on the designs and were able to take their created objects home. Future preparation. Several students expressed appreciation over this learning experience providing preparation for future schools, careers, and situations that might require the use of a 3D printer. The following excerpt from a focus group illustrates this finding. Sadie: I remember when it was time for us to decide where to go to high schools, and definitely one thing I was looking into was something with a strong science department. And, I went out to [a high school] and I was touring their engineering academy. And, they were like so proud of their 3D printer. But, theirs is better than ours. It can print like three colors at one time. It’s still like the same technology that we’re using. And, I think it’s nice that we already know how to use it. We won’t struggle with it as much. Work hard, and then you can play hard. For Sadie, using a 3D printer was motivating because it provided a degree of expertise in a field she was interested in. She was already aware of her affinity for science and engineering, and experimenting with this new tool relevant to STEM careers made her feel accomplished. Seeing the specialized 3D printer in the high school she might soon attend validated her current skillset and encouraged related pursuits in the future. She understood the relevance of her knowledge and familiarity with the 3D printer, and consequently it was not difficult to visualize herself as a student in their competitive engineering academy. Sadie went on to add: Sadie: I think that engineering is a huge part of all the new technologies, inventions in the world. Look at the car; look how far it’s come since like the first day. And, how it’s been going faster, gas mileage, using more efficient ways to do it….I think that whatever career we choose to go into, it will definitely revolve around some type of technology. Engineering teaches us those skills that we’ll use later in life.


19

Sadie saw the use of the technology in conjunction with engineering as particularly motivating for future preparation. Similarly, when asked if other schools should use 3D printers with their students, Tyler enthusiastically responded, “Yeah, so a lot of kids can learn it and it can become a more common career in the future, if all schools had them.” Students seemed to understand the utility of the 3D printer and to connect the possibilities of this tool to future careers and goals. Constraints. Despite the 3D printer providing many affordances for participating students, the students also identified constraints. In particular, students expressed concerns over the following physical limitations of the printer and corresponding software: 1) The size of printed objects, 2) The 2D nature of the design software, 3) The length of time objects took to print, and 4) The less-than-perfect aesthetics of some printed objects. Each of these constraints is discussed below with evidence from student focus groups and the teacher interview. Size. Many students expressed surprise at the size of objects the printer was capable of producing. As one group of female students agreed upon during the focus group, “I feel like most of the things we’ve done with the 3D printer have been trial and error. We didn’t know it was going to come out small.” Similarly, when students were allowed to free-print one object of their choosing before the bone project, Arianna shared, “I made a box that had a lid, and it was really cool. But, then it was like the size of my pinkie.” In both instances, the students were surprised at how small the printed objects were. The size constraints also impacted the final bone designs that students created. Two of the four student groups printed their bone in multiple pieces so the printer could better accommodate. Figure 7 depicts two group’s designs as drawn on the classroom whiteboard. In both of these designs, the bone is separated into two pieces, and the students are attempting to figure out how to best connect the pieces.

Figure 7. Bone designs that used more than one piece due to size limitations of the 3D printer. In Figure 7, the group shown on the left attempted to create two interlocking pieces (drawn in blue and purple) of the bone that slide into place. Alternatively, the group’s design on the right relied on the use of connecting “keys” that extruded from each side of the bone; the keys interlocked, creating the illusion of


20

one, complete bone. These multi-piece bones were shaped partly by the goal of breakability, but also due to the printer limitations. Since the printer was unable to produce a complete bone the size they desired, groups resorted to printing multiple separate pieces. Software Limitations. The size constraint of the printer was coupled with the constraints of the design software—TinkerCAD. The students designed their projects in a program that is displayed on a two-dimensional screen. The computer-generated model can be manipulated and rotated and is drawn in perspective that provides cues to the dimensionality, but it still is flat. Students must interpret the flat visualization as three-dimensional, which requires spatial thinking. As Sadie shared, “It’s kind of like….disoriented. You can’t visual it, like, what’s the 3D version of it. And, sometimes you have to click and you have to reposition it. But, then it’s too far back. [laughter]. So you have to find a way to push it back forward. And, so…there’s a trick to it.” Both the design software and the physical limitations were constraints for what the students viewed as possible of producing with the 3D printer. In one student group, Bailey (whose design is shown on the right in Figure 7) shared the following about her experiences using the design software: Bailey: We sent [Ms. T our design], and then one [side] was like a little bit off. And, when we finally got [the print] the pegs were too big. And, one was like smaller. So, it was all just very…ugh…really frustrating at that point. Bailey’s group used interlocking keys to connect the two pieces of the bone. However, to ensure that the keys actually interlocked, it required a great amount of manipulation in TinkerCAD, which proved frustrating for Bailey’s group. Length of printing time. Another constraint identified by students was the length of time that the printer took to produce designs. For the bone project, both the teacher and students shared concern over this aspect of printing. Almost all students made comments about the surprisingly long length of time it took to print. For example, when explaining why they changed their design, Alejandro explained; “And, didn’t [Ms. T] say, ‘Your original bone would have taken 5 hours to print?’” Their design change was based on the teacher not wanting to wait 5 hours for a print, and the teacher deciding that some designs were not feasible due to long print time. This concern was also captured in the teacher interview, as shown below. Ms. T: I don’t think I accounted for the bones really taking like two and a half hours to print. And that, with one printer, is a lot. It just, there’s only six, eight hours that I’m here. Okay, so I can get two or four [printed each day]. I left a couple [printing overnight] and it just like… enclosed the whole extruder. Beyond the overall print time, another limitation was that the teacher needed to be present to monitor and troubleshoot during print time. Leaving prints unattended proved problematic for the teacher, resulting in


21

less designs being printed for the students. Both parties seemed frustrated by this limitation. Aesthetics. Similar to the problem that Ms. T described above, 3D printers do not work perfectly all the time. Prints may come out too stringy, not fully formed, or different than the digital design. An example of these problematic prints is shared below from a student focus group. Alejandro: I don’t know. We sent many designs, and they came out like what we didn’t do. Like, one time, we put a cut here, and there was like two holes, and two little things. Cody: Yeah, like a demented seashell. Alejandro: Another one was all melted. Similarly, Sadie experienced a problematic print—“Different parts didn’t come out very well. It was like loose 3D printing, instead of being nice and tight.” Students seemed surprised that the 3D printer was not error-proof. Finding 3: Tensions within the CDE Activity System One benefit to using CHAT as a theoretical tool is its ability to highlight tensions between interacting nodes of the activity triangle (shown in Figure 2). These tensions provide insights into sources of change and progress. Where there is a tension, there is an opportunity for improvement within the activity system. At the very least, tensions are worth further investigation in order to gain a more complete and nuanced understanding of the activity system. In this section, two illustrative vignettes are discussed to highlight areas of tension within this CDE classroom. Vignette 1—Tension between physical tool and division of labor. As was already discussed, 3D printers can take a long amount of time to print objects. Because of this, teachers using this technology in the classroom must create a system to manage printing. In this CDE class, prints were limited to the assigned project. As one student shared, “Ms. T won’t free-for-all print.” Before beginning the bone project, the teacher did allow students to print one object of their choosing; as she shared, “Their first build would be something for themselves and they kind of got that out of their system.” However, some students still expressed mild frustration over not being able to choose the item of their printing after this point in time. Additionally, another student expressed concern during the focus group over not fully understanding how the printer functioned: Arianna: We don’t actually know how the 3D printing process works because Ms. T does it on her computer. We just email her the design, so there’s not much we can do, except make sure it’s big enough, or ask Ms. T if it’s big enough because it might print out really, really small. But, she mainly controls all the things. In this event, the teacher was attempting to simplify the printing process by only requiring students to email digital designs. However, the way in which labor was divided (in this instance, who was in control


22

of the 3D printer) was at the expense of a student not understanding how the tool functioned. Within a classroom setting, teachers are most often in control of the classroom space and contents; for example, middle school students rotate classrooms for each subject, moving to the teacher’s individual room as opposed to the teacher moving to the students. The same applies to materials and tools within the classroom. The stakes seem higher the more expensive equipment becomes, as was the case with the 3D printer. The teacher controlled the tool, as is the norm in a typical classroom, but at the expense of students learning how the tool functioned. Vignette 2—Tension between classroom rules and the Maker Mindset. An interesting behavioral situation was discussed in one focus group that highlighted the tension between typical school rules and key tenants of the Maker Mindset (Dougherty, 2013). This group shared a story about a student accidentally, but immediately, breaking a bone prototype after it finished printed. Tyler: I thought we broke it... Travis: Oh yeah, it was fresh out of the 3D printer. He was like, "Oh look at this bone!" and then he snapped it in half [laughter]. Tyler: That was an accident. I wasn't paying attention. I don't know. Interviewer: Did it break and splinter like it was supposed to? Tyler: Yeah, one half. Well that's how we knew it would work. Yeah, but I got in trouble for it. We didn't want to use 3D material, but that's how we figured out that it worked. Travis: Then he spent the rest of the…period trying to glue it back together. In the situation that the students described above, this accident proved fruitful for the design process; the students knew that their design would splinter in a realistic manner because they accidentally broke their bone and were able to observe the splintering. However, within the typical classroom, students are rarely celebrated for breaking things. In fact, Tyler shared that he “got in trouble” for this incident. Even if the “trouble” was relatively minor, Tyler still perceived it as trouble. If this incident occurred in an individual’s personal workshop, there would be no trouble to get into. But, because this occurred in a classroom, with rules for behavior and participation, Tyler did not receive positive recognition for his actions. Facilitating 3D printing within the constraints of a classroom presents unique considerations and situations that do not always occur in the traditional classroom. In this instance, there was clear tension between the rules of the classroom and key tenants of the Maker Movement, particularly around ideas of experimentation and learning from failure. Both of the vignettes presented in this section reveal how tensions within the activity system are tied to constraints of the physical tool. The long time required for prints, for example, led to the teacher controlling the prints and limiting who prints what and when. This also created different expectations for prototypes, such as that they should be handled carefully and not broken unless during a specific test time.

23

Hansen, McBeath & Harlow Making meaning of making This led to the role and rule clash, and ultimately less deep understanding and less experimentation but

because of limitations of printer. Ironically, in these instances the Maker fabrication tool when introduced to the context of a classroom imposed some norms counter to Maker mindsets and ideals. Discussion In this study, we investigated student and teacher conceptions of a middle school, maker-centered CDE class compared to their traditional science class. We examined the affordances and constraints of the digital fabrication process, as well tensions that emerged within the activity system. The teacher of this CDE class succeeded in exposing students to new tools, providing opportunities to develop pertinent skills, and opening doors for future exploration with these tools. Despite occurring in a normal classroom environment (usually accompanied by increased structure and norms for behavior), this project served as an authentic and engaging example of how students can be positioned to authentically create with technology, rather than simply consuming technology. When compared to their science classroom, students described the experimental process of CDE, contrasting this with their perception of science being about finding a predetermined right answer. For most students, this was a more motivating and memorable, long-term project and unlike their perceived experiences in science class, did not require memorizing disconnected facts or vocabulary words out of context. This digital fabrication project appeared to make engineering applicable to the students’ lives in ways that their science class did not. This CDE classroom studied here is as an exemplary model for incorporating making into the classroom, but also highlights disconnects in the science instruction these students experienced. It is problematic that students thought of science as memorizing and confirming what is already known, a portrayal science that does not accurately represent how science works in the real world. Perhaps if presented with more open-ended challenges in science class, students and teachers could deviate from experiments with one, predetermined correct answer. This could in-turn create higher motivation to learn. If students are presented with issues scientists are currently tackling in the professional world, or are given opportunities to create new bodies of knowledge through citizen science approaches, perhaps more students can begin seeing themselves as “experimenting” in science class rather than conducting experiments. While making provides many affordances in terms of learning, it is also important to recognize what is feasible in a typical classroom, taking into consideration tools, students, and teachers. While some organizations have began to develop materials for teachers to use in their classrooms, there is not yet widespread or standard curriculum for teaching topics like CDE, teachers are often forced to create lessons and materials from scratch, which may lead to more interesting projects; however, the creation of new teaching materials is difficult, especially if teachers lack the background and experience with the

24

Hansen, McBeath & Harlow Making meaning of making content or the tools. There are also limitations imposed by fabrication tools. For example, when

considering 3D printers, it is often difficult to print designs for an entire classroom of students due to the lengthy printing time required. It is also worth examining what happens at points of tension when classrooms implement making. In the context of this study, it was found that typical norms for classroom participation sometimes conflicted with key tenants of the Maker Movement. For example, while the Maker Movement celebrates failure as an essential component to the learning process, students may respond differently to failing within the context of a classroom. While considered productive and positive in making, failure may be more difficult in a school setting with a required product and assessment. More attention needs to focus on how we, as educators, can re-frame the idea of “messing up” to “opportunities for “building on”? This study’s main limitation is due to the fact that this investigation occurred in one classroom, with one teacher, at one school. While the goal of this case study was not generalizability, more work is needed to investigate similar courses at other schools with varying student demographics to establish best practices for creating with technological tools, such as the 3D printer. As Paulo Blikstein shared at the 2013 Interaction Design and Children (IDC) conference: Education needs a collection of models demonstrating the impact of implementing Seymour's [constructionist] ideas in school. Maybe then they will not anymore be painfully hard to implement, but a lot easier. And it is our job to build those models. So go forth and construct. (Blikstein, 2013) In line with Blikstein, we must construct the reality of making in schools for ourselves. Schools need a collection of models from which to draw from; proof that meaningful learning can occur when students engage with active construction in STEM-rich contexts. It is through rich, descriptive accounts of making that we can document best practices and ensure that the Maker Movement is executed with fidelity in the traditional school system. Our work provides an example of making situated in the complexity of an existing social structure – the classroom. As the Maker Movement and related maker activities are more frequently integrated into schools, more research is needed on how to do this effectively, while still supporting critical tenants of the movement, such as creativity, experimentation, collaboration, and viewing failure as a positive (Dougherty, 2013). References Baker, W.D., Green, J. & Skukauskaite, A. (2008). Video-Enabled Ethnographic Research: A Microethnographic Perspective. In G. Walford (Ed.), How to do educational ethnography. London: Tufnell Press. Bennet, D., & Monahan, P. (2013). NYSCI Design Lab: No Bored Kids! In M. Honey & D. Kanter


25

(Eds.), Design Make Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (pp.34-49). New York, NY: Routledge. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers. Collins, E. & Green, J. (1992). Learning in classroom settings: Making and breaking a culture. In H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining learning: Roots of Educational Change. Norwood, NJ: Ablex pp. 59-86. Dewey, J. (1902). The Child and Curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In Honey, M., & Kanter, D.E. (Eds.) Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp.7-16). New York, NY: Routledge. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64-103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Friere, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Green, J. L., & Meyer, L. A. (1991). The embeddedness of reading in classroom life: Reading as a situated process. In C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., pp. 141-160. Green, J.L., Skukauskaite, A., & Baker, D. (2012). Ethnography as epistemology. In Arthur, J., Waring, M., Coe, R., & Hedges, L.V. (Eds.), Research methods & methodologies in education (pp. 309-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Halverson, E., and Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Reviews, 84(4) 495-504. Leont’ev, A.A. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Martin, L. 2015. The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education, Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), Article 4. Martinez, S.L. (2014, June). The why behind 3D printing. Speech presented at the International Society for Technology in Education, Atlanta, GA. Montessori, M. (1964). The advanced Montessori method. Cambridge, Mass.: R. Bentley. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Papert, S., and Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1-11.


26

Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It Looks Like Fun, but Are They Learning? In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design Make Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (pp. 50-70). New York, NY: Routledge. Resnick, M., & Rosenblum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, 163-181. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. Roth, W.M. and Lee, Y.J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232. Simon, M., & Brown, G. (2013). RAFT: A Maker Palace for Educators. In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design Make Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (pp. 138-162). New York, NY: Routledge. Turliuk, J., & Forest, A. (2014, August). The Cornerstones of Making with Kids: MakerKids shares their recipe for a successful makerspace. Make: 40, 13. Vossoughi, S. & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and Tinkering: A Review of the Literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM: 1-55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Ed., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1934). Walford, G. (2008). The nature of educational ethnography. In Walford, G. (Ed.), How to do educational ethnography (pp. 1-15). London, UK: Tufnell Press.